Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
STATION
CSPAN 64
LANGUAGE
English 64
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 64 (some duplicates have been removed)
-span q&a. -- 8:00 on c-span q&a. >> a discussion on president obama's choice for secretary of defense. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> the military marching in formation. the rehearsal taking place on capitol hill. this in advance of the ceremonies that will get underway in eight days. a mild day in washington, d.c. to buttress to reach the mid- 60's. -- temperatures to reach the mid-60. -- mid-60's. we want to focus on the nomination of senator chuck hegel to be the next defense secretary. the want to welcome two experts. terry schmidt and steve clemens. -- gary schmidt and steve clemons. did his nomination surprise you? >guest: it did not. when you began looking at the transition from leon panetta and asking what kind of person who would have in there, someone who would command competency and stature. he seemed an obvious choice. host: news from "the new york times." pointing out to republicans who called him and appeasers based on what he said in a rock. he voted for the rock were but then turned against that conflict. the word appeasers seems to be pretty strong. -- iraq,
defense budget, i think chuck hagel seemed a very obvious choice. i basically thought that is where the president was going to go early on. host: this is a the news from "the new york times". the war and against hagel and republicans called him in the piecer based on what he said in iraq. he voted for the war but turned against it. easer sings very strong. guest: he voted for it and then had criticism of how it was being carried out. when you talk about the secretary defense, the most important thing that happened during the war is the surge. he voted against the surge. he called the worst mistake since vietnam. we know in terms of the military, strategy and the search worked. it was very successful. when you're talking about putting somebody in the secretary of defense has such strong views, in my opinion, that is the question that senators will be asking. host: we are going to share with you from the c-span video library some of the statements by senator chuck hagel and many interviews were conducted with him over the years. our que in a program and a number of speeches he has del
of jobs. >> i would appreciate that. with the cuts they're taking in the defense part of the budget, i believe we can find additional savings. i wanted to ask -- as i understand it, there is nearly 270 bases in germany 65 years after world war two ended. i want to know if the administration has conducted a savings estimate on closing these bases? they probably no longer serve a strategic value and of some of them do, i would question if whether 200 of them do. >> these are the kinds of questions the department and its needs to ask, not just about europe but about its operations everywhere. what we need for our current and future defense and what can we live without? i cannot prejudge the answer to this question by putting in this budget the first to bring in the department of defense backed into the normal budget trade- offs where we say no real growth, that is a cut in terms of what you can buy and it means you have to start doing less things, that's a step in the direction of asking a lot of very hard questions. >> i wanted to thank you for your comments earlier. being in california,
hagel, the choice for defense secretary. later, someone from morgan stanley talks about his new book. "washington journal" was next. >> good morning here in washington on the sunday morning. rehearsals underway later today for the inaugural ceremony. it will officially get underway in eight days. it is sunday, january 13. the house returns this week. the senate returns after the inauguration. converse tries to figure out what to do on the issue of spending and the national debt. we want to get your comments on a proposal put forth by senate democrats to bypass congress, allowing the president to raise the debt ceiling. it also removes the debate on section four of the 14th amendment. we will focus on all of this this sunday morning. it was a call. numbers at the bottom of your screen. we also want you to join us online on twitter and facebook or send us an e-mail. we will get your calls and comments in just a moment. our question, whether or not they residents can -- president can't bypass congress to raise the debt ceiling. she is preparing for his inaugural address. the presid
security interests. in 2008, accordingly, the department of defense obligated over $70 million to construct an afghan national army garrison there that would house 1800 national afghan army troops and their advisers. this is a multi-building garrison. it was supposed to be completed in june of 2009. in april 2010, it still was not completed. to make matters worse, the construction had been completed -- that had been completed had major problems. roofs were sagging or collapsing because the contractor had used improper welding and soldering techniques. worse yet, the site was constructed on unstable soil. because the contractor had not adequately prepared the site and stabilize the soil and constructed proper foundation, the buildings were collapsing. they were literally sinking into the ground, causing structural failure and making them unusable. in 2010 we inspected the site. we found problems and told the defense department to fix it. they promised to do so. however, last year we returned and we found a site in deplorable condition. although some structures had been fixed, the underlying
to a firearm for self-defense. similarly, it applies to a restriction on high-capacity magazines, which we treat separately than an assault weapons ban. what a ban on the sale of high- capacity magazines, capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition be unconstitutional? i think it is a similar analysis. common use? , used for self-defense? it upheld the restriction on the sale of high-capacity magazines as well. yes, they are probably in common use. yes, there are millions and millions of these high-capacity magazines out there -- however, the court says self-defense typically does not require more than 10 rounds of ammunition. and there remains issues of fit, whether it substantially ferber's -- recent data suggest that the 1994 ban did have an impact, that the rate at which high- capacity magazines where recovered from crime and guns appears to have dropped considerably in the wake of that law and then increase to amass the glee -- dramatically after the law was expired. in my book "gunfight" i tried to show there is a long history and tradition of gun control in america. it is n
in research and defense. basic research has been enhanced by what we do at the department of energy. what has made us the leaders in innovation is that the technology that is discovered in places where frankly those rules should be shared by all of us, it is then handed off to a private sector with the capacity to implement it more effectively than any other in the world. >> i want to make sure that every member gets a chance. >> appreciate your comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, director. you propose to increase federal civilian employment by 22,400 people in the coming fiscal year. seriously? we want to increase the number of federal employees now? >> there are a lot of agencies going down where the increase is very much concentrated in areas where there are new missions where there are shared concerns. if we put in place new screening procedures and machinery to make sure that no one gets on an airplane with explosives, we will need to have the inspectors there to run the machines to know what is in them. the increases are very heavily in areas where there are new missions bein
weapons, we think it is likely the supreme court will uphold these provisions. in defense of those who do seem confused about the nature of our second amendment rights, the supreme court has not done a great job of clarifying what is the scope of our second amendment rights. as most of you know, in 2008, the supreme court held that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to have guns for personal protection. two years after that case, it struck down a lot in washington, d.c., that banned handguns and made it unlawful for you to use a shotgun or rifle for self-defense. two years after that the supreme court held the second amendment similarly applied to state and local governments and effectively declared chicago's ban on handguns unconstitutional. advocates make it clear exactly how the courts should go about interpreting the second amendment and applying it to other gun-control laws. it is one thing to identify a right in the constitution, but where the rubber hits the road is figuring out which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional, so they asked the
for the national defense wisely. i think the public knows by now we are spending $100 billion in afghanistan this year. $100 billion. we need to bring it back home. we need to end that war. thankfully, the president has set us off on a course where we will end american offensive action and move to supporting the afghan government in the spring of this year. mr. president, we are thankful you put that policy. let's bring the rest of it home. $100 billion. we need that money here. we need national defense, but we need to be wise how we spend that money. the fifth thing is this, we need to change. we need to be willing to change. thank you for bringing up the first three of those. but this is how we invest in the future, and these are policies that we need to put forward. they are the critical foundation for economic and social growth. mr. tonko: you speak to the innovation and you speak to research and that speaks to the d.n.a. our our nation which has been our pioneer spirit and is paid tribute on this floor when policies such as you just described is promoted. it is embracing that pioneer sp
in shooting sports or use firearms for self-defense and we think they are going to be hurt. >> that is the president of the nra. we want to see what you think about that issue. our next caller is jennifer from riley, kansas. >> i just want to say that freedom is our right and the government has been taking away all our rights. somebody said earlier, teachers and carrying tasters. i think that is a great idea. legal guns are here and more legal guns there are, the better chance we have to protect ourselves. at least like a team of teachers at all carry guns at the school so that we don't have to make extra budget for it or anything. i think it should be allowed to have guns. we also need to give gun safety. we give training class is to children starting very young. they are dangerous unless they are used properly. >> my thoughts at is it is the mental health. for good about the nra and the guns and all that, they are not going to vote that out. it is too much money. we should ask that an ira for help with money toward mental health. that would help solve the problem, but the
ground. we have to caught the size of the defense budget that is bigger than the next 11 or 12 nations combined. there is compromise, there is a middle ground and certainly there is a path forward on all of these issues. >> if the deficit can only be resolved in increasing taxes and cutting expenses. what expenses would you cut? >> i don't believe we should cut across the board. we should cut strategically. s there -- there is fat, no question about it. i would start there. there is no question that this defense budget is bloated. i'm speaking -- i can tell you the mayors of the country want to see less spending on defense and more spending on bridges and roads and highways and schools. investments that will bear dwiveds down the line. i also said -- i'm a democrat and this does not fly with some democrats but you have to look at some entitlements. you can be for entilettlement reform and not want to turn health care into vouchers. i can tell you mayors have gotten the support of pension reform. there's a number of things we can do that don't decimate the safety net but do, you know, m
disingenuous, and i'm being polite. if anybody was listening to the defense appropriation bill at the end of last year, just before they let us go over the fiscal cliff, republicans added $20 billion more than what the president asked for for the defense appropriation bill. this is the 20% there are going to have to cut during sequestration. now the defense department, if you keep the continuing resolution versus making a budget, they will get $680 billion this year. $20 billion more than what they ask for. yet they cannot pass a sandy bill. america, wake up. republicans that are in charge, and i guess you ququality party, they're just out to take our money. the poor and disenfranchised, they just laugh and say get a job, and they will not give you a job. host: on twitter -- in michigan on the independent line is terry. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call and for having a program. i just want to say that i do think, from the perspective of spending, there has been a lot of conversation on the bell avenue side and the president did not get what he wanted -- on the revenue
it take it off the nhs? would it take it off the defense budget? it is time we had some answers from the labour party. >> i thank the coalition government for allocating £10.7 million to edinburgh's super- connected city bid. it will revolutionise home and business internet use in parts of my constituency such as kirkliston and ratho. unfortunately, my constituents are immensely frustrated at edinburgh council's year-long procurement process. what can the prime minister do to help speed up that process? >> it is vital that everyone has access to broadband and that increasingly we have that overwhelming access to superfast broadband. i suspect that edinburgh city council has seen some of the same problems that councils up and down the country have seen with getting state-aid clearance. we now have that clearance for broadband in england, but i am happy to look at the situation in edinburgh. that has been one of the problems that have been holding back this vital program. >> "you shouldn't have to fill in long forms from the revenue. you're working. you need help. we want to help you.
in flood defenses. i think everyone can now see that the flood defence work that has been done over recent years has made a significant difference when we have had high levels of rainfall and very high water in our rivers and streams. >> can the prime minister confirm to the house that disability benefits are being uprated as usual and will not be subject to changes? >> my honorable friend is entirely right. disability living allowance, which is the key benefit received by people who are disabled, is not subject to the 1% cap. the 1% cap is for in-work benefits. it is very important that we go on paying disability living allowance in the way that we have been. >> can the prime minister confirm that my constituent, who is a nurse as well as a single father to his two children, will lose £400 a year as a result of the chancellor's cuts to child benefit and other benefits? >> the results of the cuts to child benefit are that the best-off 15% of families in this country will no longer receive child benefit at all. that is what is going to happen. that saves around £2 billion a year. again, l
concern. in fact, our defense minister is in town today at the pentagon, discussing some of these issues. he has come with a detailed list of the enablers the afghan national army needs, including, as you mentioned, long-range artillery and intelligence- gathering capabilities. fixed-wing and rotary aircraft for transportation. we have been completely dependent for all of these things on nato and our other friends and allies. again, a lot of these equipments are not as expensive as conducting these operations with nato in afghanistan. if there is a political will, it is doable. the same thing as far as the salaries of the afghan national army and police. yes, it is a significant number, considering the afghan economy. or the withdrawal of each international troops from afghanistan, we can sustain 80 afghan national army soldiers on the ground, if there is a willingness to continue with this mission. as you mentioned, to come with a more reasonable definition of success in afghanistan, which has come up to now, then diminished, what it means to succeed here in afghanistan. >> the end of t
to common good. as for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. our founding fathers faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for the expedience's sake. and so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest countries to the smallest village where my father was born, and know that america is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, that we are ready to lead once more. [cheers and applause] we call that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. they understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as he pleased. instead they knew that our power grows through its root in use, our security emanates from the justness of our cause the force of our example how mu
for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america. it's now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from illinois mr. enyart. mr. enyart: article 1, section 1, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. mr. walberg:section 2, the house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. mr. lamalfa:no person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and been seven years a citizen of the united states, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he s
of defense, mark martin's, who is the fifth chief prosecutor, the department of defense concluded a material support and conspiracy are not legitimate international lawful offenses, and they declined to participate in the appeal and it dropped the conspiracy charge against collegiate mohamed and other 9/11 detainees. the department of justice decided to move forward on the appeal ruling that those are a legitimate offenses, that the government has two different opinions. general martins to the podcast is today, and he said, number one, there's another option award to prosecute these guys, which is true because congress said cannot bring them to the u.s., so you cannot prosecute them in federal courts. we created the obstacle that makes military commissions. we created our own justification. he said it is the best form and a small number of cases, but if you peel that back and look at why, is because of the no rights advisement and the basic treatment in detention. if you peel it back, it is about what we did then -- we did to them, which makes military commissions seem like an attractive opt
have people recognize that when it comes to defense spending. some of the same people say we have to cut spending or complain that government jobs don't do anything, but when it comes to the defense contractor in their district, they think it is an important part of the economy in their district and that we should not stop spending on that. let's just make sure we're not spending on those other people. [no audio] my hope is that common sense prevails. that is always my preference. i think that would be the preference of the american people and it would be good for the economy. let me just repeat. if the issue is deficit reduction, getting our deficit sustainable over time, getting our debt in a sustainable place, then democrats and republicans in congress will have a partner in me. we could achieve that fairly quickly. we know what the numbers are and we know what needs to be done. we know what a balanced approach would take and we have done half of the deficit reduction we need to stabilize. there has probably been more pain and trauma in getting there than we needed. finishing t
most gun owners reportedly keep a fire arm in their home for protection or self-defense, 83% of gun- related deaths in gun owner homes are the result of a suicide, often by somebody other than the gun owner. homes with guns are five times more likely to experience the suicide of a household member than homes without guns. five times. death by fire arm is the fastest growing methods of suicide. unlike suicide attempts using other methods, 92% of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal, meeting a temporarily depressed person who uses a gun on never get a second chance at life. individuals are nine times more likely to die by suicide if a loaded gun is in their house. congressman thompson, i know that you are a veteran and i know veterans issues are near and dear to your heart, as they are to mine, and i brought up a photo of my dad who was a marine veteran. i just want to share a couple of facts and then ask you for what i would like to address here tonight. 20% of u.s. deaths from suicide are veterans, yet veterabs make up only 10% of the population. veterans are more likely than the g
've already made to priorities other than medicare, medicaid, social security and defense mean that we spend on everything from education to public safety less as a share of our economy than it has -- than has been true for a generation. and that's not a recipe for growth. so we've got to do more both to stabilize our finances over the medium and long term, but also spur more growth in the short term. i've said i'm open to making modest adjustments to programs like medicare to protect them for future generations. i've also said that we need more revenue through tax reform by closing loopholes in our tax code for the wealthiest americans. if we combine a balanced package of savings from spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we can solve the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things like education that are going to help us grow. it turns out the american people agree with me. they listened to an entire year's debate over this issue, and they made a clear decision about the approach they prefer. they don't think it's fair, for example, to ask a senior to
you identify problems, the first line of defense needs to be regulatory and supervisory authorities. not only the fed, but other organizations like the occ and fdic have as well. you can address these problems using regulatory and supervisory authorities. there is a lot of disagreement about what role monetary policy plays in creating acid bubbles. it is not a settled issue. there's some people -- asset bubbles. it is not a settled issue. we need to be open-minded about it and pay attention to what is happening. the federal reserve was created about 100 years ago. 1913 was the law. not to do monitor policy, but to address financial panics -- monetary policy, but to address financial panics. it is a difficult task. going forward, the fed needs to think about financial stability and monetary economic stability as being the two key pillars of what the central bank tries to do. we will be using our regulatory, supervisory powers. if necessary, we will address monetary policy as well. i do not think that is the first line of defense. >> this question comes from twitter. since the fed dec
secretary. the military, department of defense playing a big role in tomorrow's ceremony. guest: dwight eisenhower took very personally nixon's defeat. he said he knew how the condemned man felt, watching the scaffolding being built. host: people are talking about vice president biden in 2016. is that the measure of a successful presidency? guest: it is, but history argues that the last time that happened install martin van buren. arguably, americans were voting for a third reagan term albeit kinder and gentler. one of the problems for the first president bush was, he spent the first four years with the true reaganites looking over his shoulder. it complicated his political host: during his acceptance speech in 1988, he talked about a kinder, gentler nation, nancy reagan said, kinder or gentler than what? that is how the story goes. [laughter] a caller from hastings, england. welcome to the program. caller: the speech that in winston churchill made, i want to quote part of that. it relates to what the gentleman has just been talking about, technology. it said, "the stone age may science
of terrific defense. the solving of this problem -- let me see if i can get this clear for you. this is peter, right? what i was pointing out is that in california we have a responsibility to make sure that every weapon is transferred. i was a firearms license dealer for 25 years so i know what i am talking about. the result of that is -- you brought up the gun show loophole, which is important. people in other states can go and buy weapons in virginia, but it in the back of their car and take it across to pennsylvania. i was watching c-span earlier this morning. the mayor of philadelphia said they have guns were the criminals are renting guns they have bought in virginia. it is very important which has not been addressed, if you are going to register firearms, it has to be across the board. that means for people who are police officers, people who are bureaucrats, people who are elected officials -- anyone. you cannot have a two tiered system where half of the people that are just civilians have to abide by the laws and everybody else does not. one of the most important factors that each fir
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals. so let's secure liberty may prosper together. host: the comments of eisenhower in his farewell address. the washington times on the ed torle page t persist nt plague of washington waste. he writes -- host: christine is joining us from new york city. caller: good morning. i happen to love president eisenhower. i remember the jingles we used to sing when he was up for reelection. but about the role of government things have changed significantly since then and i think his words could be applied today with very good effect. and if you bear with me, i have a sentence or two that i quoted. may i read it? host: please do. caller: should any political party attempt to abollish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. there is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things, among them are h.l. hunt and a few other texas millionaires and an ockal business man from other areas. their number is nenthable and they are
defense secretary." what did we find out on the sunday shows? caller: that things done not all clear. we have a story that we've posted yesterday, bob corker is now the ranking member. this will steer the confirmation battles from senator kerrey. shut hegel served on the foreign relations committee when he was a senator. if -- chuck hegel sir run the foreign relations committee when he was a senator. they said they had formal studies to do on his record. there seems to be a lot of people from both parties, but primarily republicans, who are expressing skepticism. what remains to be seen is whether or not they will allow the nomination to go through, even if they oppose it. this would require the democrats to come up with 60 votes. host: the piece from "the new york times" this morning is that hegel will meet with chuck schumer. the headline says that it could be a crucial moment to advance the nomination. he is expected to press him on issues. schumer will be the first to meet with hegel since the nomination last week. who else is the heat set to meet with this week? -- who else is he se
you identify problems, you can use, the first line of defense needs to be regulatory and supervisory qualities. not only the fat, but other organizations -- said -- not only the fed, but other organizations. as i was saying earlier, there is a lot of disagreement about what role monetary policy plays in creating asset bubbles. it is not a settled issue. some people think it is an important source, others think it is not. we need to be open-minded about it and pay close attention to what is happening to the extent that we can identify problems. we need to address that. the federal reserve was created in -- about 100 years ago now. 1913 was the law. not to do monetary policy, but to address financial panic. and that is what we did in 2008 and 2009. it is a difficult task. going forward, the fed needs to think about financial stability. we will be working very hard on's -- on financial stability. we will try to strengthen the financial system. if necessary, we will adjust monetary policy. i do not think that is the first line of defense. >> this question comes from twitter. as the decl
hunting and i can shoot. i have done skeet shooting, but i take self-defense courses. and it's interesting that my teacher once said, you know you think you can stop them, but you can't stop a bullet. i know lots of people who own guns. it's a matter of self-defense. but, you know -- host: as a bar owner, have you seen incidents where the use of alcohol and firearms can be a dangerous -- caller: i have a guy walk into the bar with a gun strapped to his leg. he said you can't wear that in here. he said, i know. i said, you know, take the gun and leave. the thing i was worried about was someone getting drunk and a fight breaking out and somebody grabbing that gun. he said it's my right. i said great, take it. and we called the cops and they showed up. and they said well, was it a big gun? i said yeah, it was a big gun. what did you want me to do? i have had rifles shoved in my face. host: thanks for your time. calling from harrisburg, pennsylvania, psychiatric nurse. give us a little bit of your experience and mental health aspects on the proposals. caller: i think this is a really good disc
, but thinking violence can only be used in real self defense. libertarians -- back in the 2000's, people were talking about there being a liberal libertarian allies because of the anti-war attitude. it turned out liberals were not anti-war, they were just anti george bush. >> what about owning a semiautomatic rifle? >> most libertarians think you can own guns. >> why? >> some will say, you have the right to self-defense. they think guns are a way to protect yourself. it takes a lot to overcome the presumption. others will say things like, you cannot own an atomic weapon. it will always kill innocent people. there is a question of how much risk you are imposing on other people. the more congested the area you live in, the last rounds you have for owning a weapon. there are libertarians who are in favor of gun control. you can maybe owned a gun but only if you demonstrate competence and are not a criminal. it would be better if people did not own guns. would be better if we did not have the kind of gun culture we have in the united states. they are not in favor of gun control now because they t
that a look at the projected cuts in defense spending. tomorrow on "washington journal" we'll discuss president obama's nominee for defense secretary former nebraska senator chuck hagel. our guest is gary schmidt with the american enterprise institute followed by emerging markets in developing country. we're joined with morgan stanley investment management. he spends one week in a different developing country and will discuss his book "breakout nations." live on washington journal on c-span. >> if you ask how many are self-identified libertarians, depending on which poll you look at, you might be getting between 10% and 15%. if you ask questions like if you give people a battery of questions about different ideological things like do you believe in x and do you believe in y? then you track those, depending on which poll you get up to 30% of americans that call themselves libertarian. if you ask the following question -- are you economically conservative but socially liberal you say half of americans saying that that's what they are. just because people say these things it doesn't nece
's policy and has had a mixed outcome in the supreme court with that. another is the defensive marriage act, gay marriage where the feds are saying that they must follow a state policy. that's before the supreme court. a third is obama care where the states refuse to follow the federal policy and sued for the right to do that and won a mixed holding from the supreme court. in the midst of all this, you have a supreme court which is itself very much -- everybody come on up. there are some seats in the front. don't be shy. the supreme court is very much influx. that area is unsettled in a way that it has not been for a very long time. and in the midst of all of that, talk about putting a cat among pigeons, legalize marijuana. and this is more than any of the previous policies, a direct confrontation with federal policy. they did it, moreover by referendum. lopsided votes to the public. now a parameter for our discussion is i think it's going to say that none of our comments are rehearsed. but i think we're all probably going to agree that federal policies as a matter of law is supreme here. i
two samples, so the defense can test it, and it is better evidence with respect to whether it's susceptible to challenge. you also might have someone who consents to a breath test, but because, as you pointed out, they're so drunk they can't give a good sample, like they say they'll provide a sample, but they really just can't. and then there's another case that is not the fact here, but something we would want the court to be careful about, which is driving under the influence of drugs. those do not show up on a breath test, but the police officers might have very good reason to believe that the person is under the influence, such that they might take a breath test and get a zero reading, but still want to take a warrantless blood test. so all the court needs to do to resolve this case is say where this person refused a breathalyzer -actually, the exact same facts of schmerber -- it was -it was reasonable for the police to say, we know this evidence is going away, we know it's going to be lost, maybe we can get a warrant quickly, maybe we can't, we don't know what his blood a
, jake johnson at the department of defense had addressed the legal basis for our military efforts against al qaeda. the general counsel for the cia has discussed how the agency operates under the u.s. law. there was a lecture given two years ago. they noted that u.s. practices, including legal -- comply with all law, including the laws of war. given these efforts, adventure to say that the u.s. government has never been so open regarding its counterterrorism. there seems to be public and legal debate surrounding these technologies and how they are sometimes used in the fight against al qaeda. i want to be clear. in the course of the war in afghanistan and the fight against al qaeda, i think the american people expect us to use advanced technologies. for example, prevent attacks on u.s. forces and remove terrorists from the battlefield. that is what we do. it has saved the lives of men and women in uniform. what has captured the attention of many is a different practice. it identifies specific members of al qaeda and targeting them with legal force, often using aircraft operated by
defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. our founding fathers faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for the expedience's sake. and so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest countries to the smallest village where my father was born, and know that america is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, that we are ready to lead once more. [cheers and applause] we call that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. they understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as he pleased. instead they knew that our power grows through its root in use, our security emanates from the justness of our cause the force of our example how much tempered qualities of hum
experience. if they remain as dangerous as ever. i have had enough playing defense. enough. we have earned this at the table many times over. now it is our time to take our place at the head of the table. this was a mandate for women's leadership. our lives were under attack. our candidates ran and won across the country. our vote proved decisive in electing the president. now it is our turn to drive the conversation. nobody works harder to turn out women's voters and emily's list. nobody knows more about why they voted the way they did. they stood up not just to preserve the right to make their own health care decisions but to secure equal pay for equal work, it to protect medicare for seniors and to build an economy that works for the middle class. that is exactly what we should expect from washington. i am proud to say we have a president we can count on it. president obama has taken strong stands with women and families on health care, equality, economic security. he appointed two fantastic women to the united states supreme court. he chose his biggest rival to be his biggest partner o
, department of defense playing a big role in tomorrow's ceremony. guest: dwight eisenhower took very personally nixon's defeat. he said he knew how the condemned man felt, watching the scaffolding being built. host: people are talking about vice president biden in 2016. is that the measure of a successful presidency? guest: it is, but history argues that the last time that happened -- andrew jackson was able to install martin van buren. arguably, americans were voting for a third reagan term albeit kinder and gentler. host: there is a story that goes with that with nancy reagan. guest: i'm sure there is. one of the problems for the first president bush was, he spent the first four years with the true reaganites looking over his shoulder. it complicated his political life. host: during his acceptance speech in 1988, he talked about a kinder, gentler nation, nancy reagan said, kinder or gentler than what? that is how the story goes. [laughter] a caller from hastings, england. this program is carried live on the bbc program. welcome to the program. caller: the speech that in winston chu
secretary. secretary of state hillary clinton. and the defense secretary. so ken salazar will resign and president obama will have to fill that post. back to whether or not you support executive action on gun- control measures. senator rand paul talked about this recently. he said that president obama is acting like a king. [video clip] >> i've been opposed to executive orders even with republican presidents, but one that wants to infringe on the second amendment, we will fight tooth and nail. i promise you there will be no rock left unturned as far as trying to stop them from usurping the constitution, running roughshod over congress. you will see one heck of a debate if he decides to try to do this. host: that was banned all. jerry and san pedro, california. caller: how are you? i am not in favor of's president executive action against gun ownership. -- i'm not in favor of president obama's action against gun ownership. i support what rand paul said. people should be able to defend ourselves and defend our country against tyranny. i believe the founding fathers made that a key them
obama's nominee for defense secretary, chuck hagel. later, "q&a" with author jason brennan. >> our guest on c-span's "newsmakers" is hobby or becerra of california. josh is xavier becerra -- is xavier becerra of california. let me introduce our two reporters. ginger gibson of "politico." and mike lillis of "the hill." >> we are going to look at the fiscal cliff first. this egg, hard-fought battle over spending and cuts. you have plenty of experience in this arena. the fiscal cliff comes along. you get a deal. you voted against it here and you were the only democrat to vote against it. why did you vote against it? >> there were several of us on the democratic side that voted against it. my sense is that if we are going to really move this country forward, we have to start dealing with the big challenges we face -- physically, socially -- now, not do these short-term fixes. a long-term fix would have included something that would have disposed of the so-called fiscal cliff. i believe this short-term deal creates three new fiscal cliff's, which is not the way you want to run -- whether it i
respect. you will have a great secretary of defense in bob gates. you will have a great secretary of veterans affairs in general erik shinseki. [applause] and every single day that i am in the white house, i will try to serve you as well as you are serving the united states of america. as i said earlier today, while the tests we face are new, and the ways in which we meet them may be new, the values on which our success depends are old. those values like hard work and honesty, courage and tolerance, loyalty and patriotism, those are values that are embodied in our armed forces. what's required is for all of us to return to those values, what's required is all of us to embrace a new era of responsibility where we expect and demand not only more of our leaders, but more of ourselves. so tonight, we celebrate, but tomorrow the work begins. and i look forward to joining you in that effort. together i am confident that we will write the next great chapter in america's story. now, i've got a little surprise for some of you. as i said before, we have folks who are working right now, in i
of the defense subcommittee on appropriations, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, thank you very much for yielding me the time. the emergency funding provided for the army corps of engineers in this bill and the amendment that you offer is narrowly drawn to help the states hardest hit by hurricane sandy. would the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, the very capable and effective chairman of the energy and water development subcommittee, yield for a question? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to you. pleasure. mr. young: despite my earlier comments, i'm concerned that the flood control and coastal emergency funds appropriated by our committee in previous acts are still available for other emergency needs that occurred prior to sandy, and i would appreciate the gentleman's responsible to that. . mr. frelinghuysen: these are funds we believe that are required to respond to emergency needs for the army corps of engineers related to hurricane sandy. by appropriating these funds for this direct purpose, other prior appropriat
the national defense authorization act because he had a connection with a freedom fighter, nelson mandela. he just got off the terrorist list in 2008. he had a relation to a terrorist. under the present administration, and you can take americans to jail without due process. the black freedom movement has always been suspicious of it. we have black prisoners in their precisely because they were willing to tell the truth that was a threat and we do not talk about them. that is why the culture of fear is not just violence. people are afraid. they are afraid to lose their jobs. they are afraid to lose their status. not going to be nice tea parties, the white house. you cannot have a culture of fear and generate a movement. it is not just about justice. we have got to talk about love. martin was a titan of love. if you are not talking about love and willingness of sacrifice, we are not going nowhere. you have to be willing to hit the streets, go to jail, to die. that is what it is about. if you are not willing to do that, keep your job and drink your tea. we are in the state of emergency. [laughte
the same defense they have. that is a really bad issue. quit demonizing us for protecting ourselves. >> thank you. >> could we have -- >> thank you. thank you for taking the time to listen to all of us speak what is on our mind. i have lived here in the county for 35 years. i was at work in san francisco around the corner from one the one california from the day my friends and colleagues were needlessly murdered. i've worked on the board to prevent gun violence. not to ban guns but to reduce gun violence. we do need a background check. we need a ban on military-style assault weapons. we need a ban on large capacity magazines. that will not solve our problems. we need something very much more. that is something everyone has taught me. we need all of our freedoms and rights under our constitution. i do not believe putting our children a lot down in schools is a way to protect their freedoms and the way to teach them freedoms. there are lots of problems we need to soften things we need to do. sensible gun laws will help us do that. for thank you. >> my name is nathan russell. i had the
of the interstate highways and hardly any difference from the defense and also just to get some left side -- and we thought this would show everyone if the sequester went through that we could cut, and i believe if the sequester would have gone through, it would have cut about half of our current budget deficit on an annual basis and would have been remarkable, because i don't think it would have made a huge difference to anyone and i think people would think maybe we could cut as an experiment and set a tone for the rest of the world that the united states was serious in a different way about in a real way about our economy. and i'm amazed that people are so worried about retaining and 8%-9% max that means our government would have gone through and wouldn't have been a problem. people would not have seen any difference on a day-to-day basis. host: our previous caller mentioned algeria. there's a story out of the guardian in london talking about one man's experience. says a scottish man held hostage spoke of his relief of being rescued. and -- host: he added the algerian army's assistance has been
for washington to say it on that occasion, although not required. in defense of chief justice roberts, he is not the first to get the words confused. william howard taft, who was a distinguished chief justice, swore in herbert hoover in 1929, and that ceremony was carried over the radio, and a little girl wrote in to justice taft and said you got the words wrong. that is not the order of the words. he wrote back and said i am sure that i got them right here at -- right. they played the tape, and found that he had reversed some of the words. the fact of the matter is it does not make a difference if the chief justice skips a word, or gets a word out of order. as i mentioned, the presidency in the 19th century, and even herbert hoover just said "i do ," and that is certainly appropriate as well. we moved down to washington, dc, where the first inauguration is taking place, and there is a change of party for the first time, from the federalists, who were more formal, to the new republicans, jeffersonian republicans, or the democratic republicans, who felt more than they were the party of the
could be taken to jail without due process or judicial process under the national defense authorization act because he had a connection with a freedom fighter, nelson mandela. he just got off the terrorist list in 2008. he had a relation to a terrorist. under the present administration, and you can take americans to jail without due process. the black freedom movement has always been suspicious of it. headwe have black prisoners in their precisely because they were willing to tell the truth that was a threat and we do not talk about them. that is why the culture of fear is not just violence. people are afraid. they are afraid to lose their jobs. they are afraid to lose their status. not going to be nice tea parties, the white house. you cannot have a culture of fear and generate a movement. it is not just about justice. we have got to talk about love. martin was a titan of love. if you are not talking about love and willingness of sacrifice, we are not going nowhere. you have to be willing to hit the streets, go to jail, to die. that is what it is about. if you are not willing to do tha
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 64 (some duplicates have been removed)